Leave Susan Rice Alone

The more clear it becomes that Susan Rice, the United Nations Ambassador, did not knowingly deceive the American public about the Benghazi consulate attack, the more Republicans accuse her of having done so. Most recently, 97 members of the House wrote to President Obama opposing her possible nomination as secretary of state since she had “propagated a falsehood.”

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been banging this drum since the election. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham are threatening a filibuster if Mr. Obama nominates Ms. Rice when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps down.

The G.O.P. complaint is that on Sunday talk shows after the attack, Ms. Rice said that “extremist elements” had taken advantage of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video. That version of events fell out of favor (although Times reporting indicates it may actually have been pretty accurate) after everyone in Washington settled on the idea that Al Qaeda was responsible.
David Petraeus, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, told a closed hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that the C.I.A. believed from the get-go that Al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attack. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence cut specific references to Al Qaeda and to terrorism from the unclassified talking points given to Ms. Rice, with the agreement of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.

According to CBS, “the links to al Qaeda were deemed too ‘tenuous’ to make public.” An official told CBS that there were “legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

I find the “tenuous” explanation a bit tenuous, but what does D.N.I.’s call have to do with whether Ms. Rice should be secretary of state? As U.N. ambassador, Ms. Rice had no direct involvement in the Benghazi mess, before or during the attack. Do Republicans hostile to her think she should have gone rogue and simply ignored her approved talking points? And let’s keep things in perspective: Ms. Rice was trying to explain an event that had already taken place; she wasn’t disseminating inaccurate information to justify a future invasion, like Colin Powell did at the United Nations in 2003.

The letter from the 97 House members says that Ms. Rice’s comments did “irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world.” That’s rather audacious. Where were these defenders of American credibility when George W. Bush misled Americans about Iraq, or withheld vital information about electronic eavesdropping, indefinite detention and torture?

I have no idea if Mr. Obama really wants to nominate Ms. Rice. But if he does, he shouldn’t give in to pressure from Republicans, and especially Republican House members, who have no say over who gets appointed to secretary of state or any other job.